Court has no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of the suit filed by unregistered firm.

The above suit was filed by the applicant/plaintiff praying for a judgment and decree: (a) declaring that the plaintiff firm is the absolute owner of the property described in the schedule; (b) granting a consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession of the schedule mentioned property and for costs.

2. Later the plaint was amended as per orders dated 19.12.1990, made in Application No.6803of 1990 seeking a relief for a mandatory injunction directing defendants 3 to 5 demolish the superstructure put up on the plaint schedule property after filing the suit directing defendants 3 to 5 to deliver the vacant possession of the property to the plaintiff. Originally suit was filed against defendants 1 and 2. Later defendants 3 to 6 were brought record as party to the proceedings as per the order dated 19.11.1980, made in Application No.5280 of 1990. The suit was presented in this Court on 9.2.1987 and admitted 10.2.1987. Thesuit was filed by the petitioner stating that the plaintiff is a registered partnership firm represented by its Managing partner Mrs.Mohanasundari Murugan.

3. The first defendant filed written statement stating that the suit is not at all maintainable and the plaint is liable to be rejected in limine. In paragraph No.2 of the written statement the first defendant has stated thus:

“2. This defendant states that the plaintiff firm is not registered under Sec.69 of Partnership Act. As such, the above suit is not at all maintainable and the plaint is liable be rejected in limine.”

4. Defendants 3 to 5 who were later impleaded as parties/defendants to the suit have filed written statement on 7th September, 1990. According to the defendants the suit as framed is wholly misconceived and not maintainable either in law or on facts and circumstances the case. It is purely an abuse of process of law. In paragraph No.2 of the written statement, defendants 3 to 5 have stated thus:

“These defendants state that the suit as framed is wholly misconceived and not maintainable either in law or on the facts and circumstances of the case. It is purely an abuse of process of law.”

5. Defendants 3 to 5 have also filed an additional written statement on 7th January, 1991. This Court framed the following issues: (1) Whether the suit as framed is maintainable? Whether the plaintiff has got title to the suit property? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled the reliefs of declaration and injunction as prayed for?

6. Since the first issue relates to the maintainability of the suit, arguments were heard behalf of both parties on the question of maintainability. The plaintiff, however, with permission of the Court filed an Application No.1190 of 1991 praying permission of mis Court to withdraw the above suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. It resisted by first defendant and defendants 3 to 5.

7. According to the plaintiff, the suit was filed on the basis that the plaintiff is a registered partnership firm and for the relief of declaring that the plaintiff firm is the absolute owner the property bearing T.S.No.1, Plot No.46/95, Periyakoodal Village and more particularly described in the schedule to the plaint for granting a consequential injunction restraining defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession of the schedule mentioned property and for other reliefs.

8. As stated above all the defendants contested the suit among other things on the ground that the firm is not registered and hence the suit is not maintainable. It is the case of plaintiff that the plaint was presented in this Court on 9.2.1987. Before presenting the plaint in this Court, the plaintiff presented the papers for registration of firm on 9.2.1987 itself the registrar stated that all the papers were in order and that the firm is being registered. The plaintiff was under the bona fide impression that the firm had been registered and thereafter presented